Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the calculation method breakdown, which is helpful. However, it mentions a reduced tax for IRP pension receipt while no corresponding input parameter exists, leaving the agent unsure how that branch is triggered, and it says nothing about output format or determinism.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the jurisdiction and the resource before listing the computed components. It is efficient, though the clause list is long enough to border on cramming.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a self-contained calculator with no output schema, the description conveys the scope reasonably well. The gap is the unexplained IRP-pension reduction, which has no input parameter, so an agent cannot tell how to request that calculation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (startDate, lastWorkDate, severancePay) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no units, defaults, or format details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (South Korea retirement income tax on a severance payment) and enumerates the components computed: service-year deduction, converted-pay deduction, national and local tax, and IRP-reduced tax. This clearly separates it from the sibling severance_pay (gross pay) tool, though the verb is implied rather than stated outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The subject matter implies when to use it (taxing a severance payment after leaving a job), but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over severance_pay or how the two combine. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.